Mike's Musings: Responsibilities of a Film Critic
It seems pretty obvious what a film critic is supposed to do, right? Watch a movie, and write what you think about it. Nevertheless, I've heard comments that make me want to write down my thoughts about the job. With something this opinionated, clearly there are going to be times when people are going to be wondering what I was thinking.
First and foremost is honesty. I have to be completely honest about what I thought about a film. If I give a positive review to a movie I didn't like (or vice vera) because it's a popular movie or something, my credibility is shattered. No one will ever believe that what I'm saying is my honest opinion. There are definitely some movies that I like that many others didn't ("Congo" and "House of the Dead" are two examples) and others that everyone seemed to like but me ("The Avengers," "Gladiator," anything by Wes Anderson). But if I gave them a positive review just because everyone else did, no one would trust me and they would think I'm simply trying to be "cool" and "in."
That can sometimes take guts. Take "The Avengers" for example. That was a hugely anticipated movie by many, including myself. Fanboys were going to love it no matter what, but considering that it is the third biggest moneymaker of all time means that a lot of other people liked it too. Should I take it easy and go with popular opinion, or should I stick to my guns and give it the 1.5/4 that I thought it deserved. I did the latter, and while I'm fortunate enough to be too low-profile for fanboy hatred, I did get a comment criticizing it.
This also has a risk too. After I gave a (mildly) negative review to "Parental Guidance," I was warned that I was losing touch with my audience. For a critic, that's a chilling thought. If no one agrees with you, then no one is going read your stuff. Not that anyone does anymore...my internet went out for a month a while back and couldn't publish anything...apart from when I came out, the most hits I've had this past year was for the review of "God's Not Dead," and that was 66. When I first started out, I was getting big numbers for every movie, even ones that I watched on DVD and that no one had heard of.
Maybe the guy was right. But my opinion still stands. If I'm not honest, then it's not worth doing.
Another comment I received was that I should be more lenient on some films because of circumstances outside of the film itself. For example, I was told that I should be more lenient on "God's Not Dead" because Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East. It's an interesting thought (never mind that "God's Not Dead" had absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in that part of the world), but I disagree. A good movie is a good movie, and if a movie isn't successful at tackling a certain subject, chances are that there is another movie that did something similar with more success. "God's Not Dead" was a preachy movie that stereotyped its characters to the point of irresponsibility and ruined its own argument by using faulty reasoning. "Hardflip" was a Christian film that addressed a real issue of the Christian faith with much more success. And for those who are looking for a good film about the existence of God, Jon Amiel's "Creation" did it with much more success (and I think creationists will find value in it too...it's very evenhanded).
Finally, I've received criticism about trashing bad films. This is one area where I'm more gray. While it's certainly fun to get some manner of revenge by ruthlessly tearing a bad movie to shreds, the bottom line is that there are a lot of people who worked hard on the film and that it's impolite, not to mention insulting, to make fun of something that they put a lot of time and effort into.
There's a flip-side to that argument though. I put time and money into that film expecting to be entertained. When I'm not getting enough for what I put into it (one of which I will never get back), I should be able to say exactly what I think about it, don't you? Especially when a movie is as bad as "Identity Thief," or worse, "Ben & Arthur." They're making money by giving me such an awful product. Sure, I made the mistake of watching both movies, but shouldn't I be able to reciprocate it?
Then again, there are movies that are so silly that it's impossible to write a serious review of them (for example, "Turbulence" or "Silent Night, Deadly Night"). I challenge anyone to watch those movies and be able to give your honest opinion to someone while keeping a straight face the entire time.
The bottom line is that my only obligation is to give my opinion and say why I thought that way. That's it. If I can get someone to see a good movie and avoid a really bad one, I've done my job and I'll be happy.
First and foremost is honesty. I have to be completely honest about what I thought about a film. If I give a positive review to a movie I didn't like (or vice vera) because it's a popular movie or something, my credibility is shattered. No one will ever believe that what I'm saying is my honest opinion. There are definitely some movies that I like that many others didn't ("Congo" and "House of the Dead" are two examples) and others that everyone seemed to like but me ("The Avengers," "Gladiator," anything by Wes Anderson). But if I gave them a positive review just because everyone else did, no one would trust me and they would think I'm simply trying to be "cool" and "in."
That can sometimes take guts. Take "The Avengers" for example. That was a hugely anticipated movie by many, including myself. Fanboys were going to love it no matter what, but considering that it is the third biggest moneymaker of all time means that a lot of other people liked it too. Should I take it easy and go with popular opinion, or should I stick to my guns and give it the 1.5/4 that I thought it deserved. I did the latter, and while I'm fortunate enough to be too low-profile for fanboy hatred, I did get a comment criticizing it.
This also has a risk too. After I gave a (mildly) negative review to "Parental Guidance," I was warned that I was losing touch with my audience. For a critic, that's a chilling thought. If no one agrees with you, then no one is going read your stuff. Not that anyone does anymore...my internet went out for a month a while back and couldn't publish anything...apart from when I came out, the most hits I've had this past year was for the review of "God's Not Dead," and that was 66. When I first started out, I was getting big numbers for every movie, even ones that I watched on DVD and that no one had heard of.
Maybe the guy was right. But my opinion still stands. If I'm not honest, then it's not worth doing.
Another comment I received was that I should be more lenient on some films because of circumstances outside of the film itself. For example, I was told that I should be more lenient on "God's Not Dead" because Christians are being persecuted in the Middle East. It's an interesting thought (never mind that "God's Not Dead" had absolutely nothing to do with what's going on in that part of the world), but I disagree. A good movie is a good movie, and if a movie isn't successful at tackling a certain subject, chances are that there is another movie that did something similar with more success. "God's Not Dead" was a preachy movie that stereotyped its characters to the point of irresponsibility and ruined its own argument by using faulty reasoning. "Hardflip" was a Christian film that addressed a real issue of the Christian faith with much more success. And for those who are looking for a good film about the existence of God, Jon Amiel's "Creation" did it with much more success (and I think creationists will find value in it too...it's very evenhanded).
Finally, I've received criticism about trashing bad films. This is one area where I'm more gray. While it's certainly fun to get some manner of revenge by ruthlessly tearing a bad movie to shreds, the bottom line is that there are a lot of people who worked hard on the film and that it's impolite, not to mention insulting, to make fun of something that they put a lot of time and effort into.
There's a flip-side to that argument though. I put time and money into that film expecting to be entertained. When I'm not getting enough for what I put into it (one of which I will never get back), I should be able to say exactly what I think about it, don't you? Especially when a movie is as bad as "Identity Thief," or worse, "Ben & Arthur." They're making money by giving me such an awful product. Sure, I made the mistake of watching both movies, but shouldn't I be able to reciprocate it?
Then again, there are movies that are so silly that it's impossible to write a serious review of them (for example, "Turbulence" or "Silent Night, Deadly Night"). I challenge anyone to watch those movies and be able to give your honest opinion to someone while keeping a straight face the entire time.
The bottom line is that my only obligation is to give my opinion and say why I thought that way. That's it. If I can get someone to see a good movie and avoid a really bad one, I've done my job and I'll be happy.
Comments
Post a Comment